Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq. v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation (SPR 20252997)

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Public Records Division Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records October 22, 2025 SPR25/2997 William Doyle, Esq. Records Access Officer Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510 Boston, MA 02116 Dear Attorney Doyle: I have received the petition of Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq., of Thomas Law Offices, appealing the response of the Department of Transportation (Department) to three requests for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). On September 4, 2024, Attorney Haynes requested “[d]ocuments, media, communication, and other memorialized records relating to overweight/oversized permits applied for by, obtained by, and/or denied to Assabet Mack Service, Inc. d/b/a Assabet Heavy Hauling (hereinafter, “Assabet”), by and through any and all of its employees and/or agents from January 1, 2018 to the present. The records request further seeks production of all violations alleged against Assabet from January 1, 2018 to the present.” The Department assigned reference number P001616- 090424 to this request. Also on September 4, 2024, Attorney Haynes requested “[d]ocuments, media, communication, and other memorialized records relating to overweight/oversized permits applied for by, obtained by, and/or denied to Jarod T. Hardaker (hereinafter, “Hardaker”) from January 1, 2018 to the present. The records request further seeks production of all violations and/or suspensions alleged against Hardaker from January 1, 2018 to the present. The records request further seeks production of all commercial driver’s license applications, denials, suspensions relating to Hardaker.” The Department assigned reference number P001618-090424 to this request. Additionally, on September 4, 2024, Attorney Haynes requested “documents, media, communication, and other memorialized records relating to overweight/oversized permits applied for by, obtained by, and/or denied to Hub Foundation Co., Inc. (hereinafter, “Hub Foundation”), by and through any and all of its employees and/or agents from January 1, 2018 to the present. The records request further seeks production of all violations alleged against Hub One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914 sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us

William Doyle, Esq. SPR25/2997 Page 2 October 22, 2025 Foundation from January 1, 2018 to the present.” The Department assigned reference number P001619-090424 to this request. The Department responded on September 10, 2024, providing a fee estimate. Subsequently, Attorney Haynes paid the fees on September 11, 2024. Attorney Haynes again contacted the Department concerning these requests on May 5, June 17, and August 19, 2025. Having received no further response, Attorney Haynes petitioned this office, and this appeal, SPR25/2997, was opened as a result. The Public Records Law The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26). It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist. Attorney for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld or redacted portion of the responsive record. If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records custodian must provide the responsive records. The Department’s September 10th Response In its September 10, 2025 response, the Department provided a total fee estimate of $175. Subsequently, Attorney Haynes paid the fees by check on September 11, 2025. In his appeal petition, Attorney Haynes contends that “since payment, MassDOT has provided no schedule and no records despite multiple written follow-ups (5/5/25, 6/17/25, 8/19/25).” Regarding his second and third requests, he further contends that “MassDOT never provided the required 10-business-day written response identifying scope, exemptions, fees, or a production timeline.” Timeframe for Providing Records G. L. c. 66, § 10(b) provides, in pertinent part, that if the magnitude or difficulty of a request unduly burdens the other responsibilities of the agency or municipality such that the agency or municipality cannot provide records within 10 business days, the agency or

William Doyle, Esq. SPR25/2997 Page 3 October 22, 2025 municipality must inform the requestor in writing within 10 business days. With respect to the timeframe to produce responsive records, the written response shall: identify a reasonable timeframe in which the agency or municipality shall produce the public records sought; provided, that for an agency, the timeframe shall not exceed 15 business days following the initial receipt of the request for public records . . . and provided further, that the requestor may voluntarily agree to a response date beyond the timeframes set forth herein. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(vi). Where Attorney Haynes submitted his requests on September 4, 2024, and paid the fees on September 11, 2024, and the Department has not provided responsive records, nor cited an exemption for withholding records, I find the Department has not met its burden in responding to the requests in accordance with G. L. c. 66, § 10(b). Consequently, the Department must provide an estimated date as to when it intends to complete the search and provide the responsive records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10(a) (records must be provided without unreasonable delay). To the extent possible, the Department must provide responsive records on a rolling basis. Conclusion Accordingly, the Department is ordered to provide Attorney Haynes with a response to the request, provided in a manner consistent with this order, the Public Records Law and its Regulations within ten (10) business days. A copy of any such response must be provided to this office. It is preferable to send an electronic copy of the response to this office at pre@sec.state.ma.us. Attorney Haynes may further appeal the substantive nature of the Department’s response within ninety (90) days. See 950 C.M.R. 32.08(1). Sincerely, Manza Arthur Supervisor of Records cc: Nicholas K. Haynes, Esq.